Hi -
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; "John C
Klensin" <john(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Thomas Narten" <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; "Ned Freed"
<ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>; "IETF list"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Robert Elz"
<kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an
IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)
...
2. this concerned list (ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no) is not an
IETF list,
but an Harald Alvestrand's private mailing list. At least this what Harald
told me, to be able to ban me, without proper procedure, AD protection and
appeal possibilities RFC 3494 would have granted me. I must say that, among
others, I demand for months that list to be set-up as a IANA mailing list
it is to be (RFC 3066) with all the publicity, IANA access and decorum the
matter requires;. In the process I may have trolled a little bit to trap
Harald in acknowledging the situation :-). Everything is on-line.
The mailing service for ietf-languages(_at_)iana(_dot_)org happens to be
provided by
Harald. This is not unusual or improper, as has been explained to you on
the ietf-languages list, as well as the ltru WG mailing list. Furthermore, your
request to change the administration of the mailing list was rejected by WG
consensus.
Your bad behaviour on the ietf-languages(_at_)iana(_dot_)org and
ltru(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org lists
(suspended twice on the former, once on the latter) and consistent efforts
to delay progress on both lists have done little to enhance your credibility.
Indeed, I was surprised when the ltru WG did NOT agree to add text
to the draft on the registry to explicitly address the question of suspending
disruptive elements on the ietf-languages(_at_)iana(_dot_)org mailing list.
...
4. everyone knows that for a long IETF has joined ITU and adopted the UN
system. So everyone knows that "419" comes from M.49
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm which is the Harald's
replacement for Jon Postel's RFC 1591 which selected ISO 3166. This is why
".us" has now become ".840". Also everyone agrees "Americas" was is
ambiguous term: so the expert selected "419" which stands for "Latin
America and Caribbean" instead of "019" which stands for ... "Americas".
This means that for the IESG/IANA the USA have no New Mexico state (cf.
below).
This is a gross misrepresentation. See
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-06.txt
section 2.4.4, especially point (3) (D).
...
The review of the management of the IANA langtag registry is subject to
the work of the WG-ltru. http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
Thank you for the advertisement. We are very close to WG last call, so
I urge those interested to join now.
Let me make some outreach for this important WG for the image of the IETF
in the international community, in an area where Culture Ministries,
academic people and ccTLD Managers, GAC Members, etc. are very concerned,
their language, culture and to some extent their economy are involved. I
note we are only two there having not English as a mother language, what is
not enough to provide the WG with the necessary diversity.
Demonstrably false, and you know it. There are more than two WG participants
whose first language is not English. Some members are linguists by training,
and the WG includes experts in internationalization. Of course more would
always be welcome, but I think those we have are up to the task.
...
The consistency with ISO 11179 (Registries continuity) and the work IETF
should carry in that area, is precisely what would prevent cases like the
HBH case and determine how such parameters should be recorded and where.
...
The ltru WG consensus was to not delay our work in order to align with ISO
11179.
Randy, ltru co-chair
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf